A. As to the fraud against the victim E, it was true that the Defendant had decided to trade the Korea-style fashion and dumping intent, and the Defendant paid KRW 30 million out of KRW 100 million received from the injured party as the down payment, but in the Korea-style fashion, there was no value for the Defendant to offer it as a security in the Korea-style fashion, and thus, the transaction will not be deferred next to the next day.

Next, as to the fraud against the victim F, it is true that the defendant borrowed money from the damaged party on the condition that he would offer the right of lease of G commercial building as security, but the contract between the defendant and G is delayed and the offer of security for commercial building is delayed.

Finally, as to the fraud of the victim I, it is true that the defendant made a victim's loan money from the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, but it was paid to M money received from the victim with such a talk from M who provides loan services for the defendant Indian Bank, but M did not return money while M did not return money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud against the victims, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant had an incomplete criminal intent with respect to each of the instant fraud, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

(1) The victims shall commit the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.